That's a safe assumption, yeah I figured there was something that I was overlooking. Doesn't seem right though that having a tougher schedule and losing a couple of those is worse than beating a bunch of 100+ teams.

Posted by bigbucks69 on 7/28/2013 8:25:00 AM (view original):That's a safe assumption, yeah I figured there was something that I was overlooking. Doesn't seem right though that having a tougher schedule and losing a couple of those is worse than beating a bunch of 100+ teams.

Posted by bigbucks69 on 7/28/2013 8:25:00 AM (view original):That's a safe assumption, yeah I figured there was something that I was overlooking. Doesn't seem right though that having a tougher schedule and losing a couple of those is worse than beating a bunch of 100+ teams.

Well, how can you say he did better than bigbucks vs good teams. Bigbucks played 3 more good teams than him, so you can't say that. If they both played 12 games against good teams than fine, but that's not the case. One played nine and bigbucks played 12. Both have 8 wins, can't assume other guy would win 1 more game if he played 3 more top 100 teams. They count wins plain and simple. You could be 34-0 against top 200 and you'll get better seed than someone being 28-6 and 10-4 against top 50. Colonels yes do your BPI, just for kicks.

Posted by terps21234 on 7/28/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):Well, how can you say he did better than bigbucks vs good teams. Bigbucks played 3 more good teams than him, so you can't say that. If they both played 12 games against good teams than fine, but that's not the case. One played nine and bigbucks played 12. Both have 8 wins, can't assume other guy would win 1 more game if he played 3 more top 100 teams. They count wins plain and simple. You could be 34-0 against top 200 and you'll get better seed than someone being 28-6 and 10-4 against top 50. Colonels yes do your BPI, just for kicks.

That's silly. It's never going to be a perfect comparison -- you can't say that if they haven't played the exact number of games against top teams, then you can't make a comparison. If that were the case, then basically every comparison would be invalidated. Attempting to hold to that impossible standard makes no sense, and just isn't logical.

And you're incorrect -- if you beat up on a only crappy teams, your seeding is going to stink in comparison to your record.

Posted by terps21234 on 7/28/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):Well, how can you say he did better than bigbucks vs good teams. Bigbucks played 3 more good teams than him, so you can't say that. If they both played 12 games against good teams than fine, but that's not the case. One played nine and bigbucks played 12. Both have 8 wins, can't assume other guy would win 1 more game if he played 3 more top 100 teams. They count wins plain and simple. You could be 34-0 against top 200 and you'll get better seed than someone being 28-6 and 10-4 against top 50. Colonels yes do your BPI, just for kicks.

"They count wins plain and simple". Hey, you know what else they count? Losses, plain and simple. It's "record" versus top 50, 100 200, etc. Record is not just wins, it's the losses too. You say that we can't assume that the other guy would have won at least one of the three games he would have needed to play to equal Buck's twelve games. I say that Bucks had three *EXTRA* chances to win MORE games than the other guy and couldn't get the job done and that's why the other team is rated higher.

Posted by terps21234 on 7/28/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):Well, how can you say he did better than bigbucks vs good teams. Bigbucks played 3 more good teams than him, so you can't say that. If they both played 12 games against good teams than fine, but that's not the case. One played nine and bigbucks played 12. Both have 8 wins, can't assume other guy would win 1 more game if he played 3 more top 100 teams. They count wins plain and simple. You could be 34-0 against top 200 and you'll get better seed than someone being 28-6 and 10-4 against top 50. Colonels yes do your BPI, just for kicks.

You can't assume he wouldn't have won two out of three either. Or three out of three. Why should you presume he would have lost all three, which is what your position requires?

The one position requires that he only win one out of three, lower than his percentage so far against top 100 teams. Your requires a complete debacle where he loses three out of three. Which is a more realistic scenario?

Posted by terps21234 on 7/28/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):Well, how can you say he did better than bigbucks vs good teams. Bigbucks played 3 more good teams than him, so you can't say that. If they both played 12 games against good teams than fine, but that's not the case. One played nine and bigbucks played 12. Both have 8 wins, can't assume other guy would win 1 more game if he played 3 more top 100 teams. They count wins plain and simple. You could be 34-0 against top 200 and you'll get better seed than someone being 28-6 and 10-4 against top 50. Colonels yes do your BPI, just for kicks.

So, if one team played ten top 100 teams and was ten and oh, and another played twenty top 100 teams and was ten and ten would you say that you couldn't say that the other team did better against good teams because "you couldn't presume that other team would win at least one of those ten games"?

Posted by terps21234 on 7/28/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):Well, how can you say he did better than bigbucks vs good teams. Bigbucks played 3 more good teams than him, so you can't say that. If they both played 12 games against good teams than fine, but that's not the case. One played nine and bigbucks played 12. Both have 8 wins, can't assume other guy would win 1 more game if he played 3 more top 100 teams. They count wins plain and simple. You could be 34-0 against top 200 and you'll get better seed than someone being 28-6 and 10-4 against top 50. Colonels yes do your BPI, just for kicks.

"They count wins plain and simple". Hey, you know what else they count? Losses, plain and simple. It's "record" versus top 50, 100 200, etc. Record is not just wins, it's the losses too. You say that we can't assume that the other guy would have won at least one of the three games he would have needed to play to equal Buck's twelve games. I say that Bucks had three *EXTRA* chances to win MORE games than the other guy and couldn't get the job done and that's why the other team is rated higher.

I like the way you put it Emy, three extra chances, so does that mean I should only schedule teams that I will have the highest chance of beating? doesn't seem right to me that way.
it's a tough year with one sr. I'm working on evening out these classes though.

Good point Emy, arssanguinus, and girt. I hope I didn't come out being mean. Not my intention with all the **** that has been going on in these forums. I was just stating that in another forum people were saying in you go 10-0 vs top 100 and 10-0 vs top 300 and another goes 10-10 against top 100, both teams have 10 wins vs top 100. Wouldn't the 20-0 team be ranked higher and/or seeded higher than the 10-10 team even thought 10-10 played a tougher schedule?